A private members bill known as the ‘Climate and Nature’ Bill is currently wending its way through the British parliament. The objective of the Bill is to save the planet. To do so, the Bill outlines a series of open-ended, ill-defined measures that the government can co-opt in order to do whatever it (the govt) deems necessary to save the planet. I will post a summary of the Bill in my next post. However, for the purposes of this post, I am focusing on the Bill’s determination to drastically reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and what this will mean for the UK’s ability to produce enough energy to support the economy. My MP, Marie Goldman, who likes to think of herself as a ‘Good Person’ and wants others to see her as a ‘Good Person’, supports this Bill. As such, I had no choice but to contact her, by email, in an effort to prompt Goldman into some critical thinking. Below, I document my email exchanges with Marie Goldman. There are 3 messages, so far: 2 from me with 1 response from MG.
First email from Atticus Fox to Marie Goldman on 11th Jan 2025:
‘Dear Ms Goldman, Can you explain why you support the Climate and Nature Bill? Can you include in your answer details on the effects you believe the Bill will have on British industry and construction? What effects do you think this Bill will have on British living standards? What effects do you think this Bill will have on domestic energy consumption? What effects do you think this Bill will have on food production and food import? What effect do you think this Bill will have on Global temperatures? Regards, Xxxxxxxx’
Atticus: I dashed off the email above without much thought. I hadn’t even read the Bill at this stage. I expected that Goldman would respond with a pre-scripted boilerplate response so I didn’t want to invest a lot of time and effort.
First response from Marie Goldman to Atticus Fox on 17th Jan, 2025:
‘Dear Xxxxxxx, Thank you for your kind email regarding the Climate and Nature Bill. Climate change is an existential threat. Soaring temperatures leading to wildfires, floods, droughts and rising sea levels are affecting millions of people directly, and billions more through falling food production and rising prices. Urgent action is needed – in the UK and around the world – to achieve net zero and avert catastrophe. At the same time, sky-high energy bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost-of-living crisis. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and invest in renewables – both to cut energy bills and to deliver energy security. I be (Sic) in attendance of the second reading [AF: 2nd reading of the Bill scheduled for 24th Jan] – it’s already in my diary. I look forward to encouraging its progress in Parliament. Many thanks for your correspondence. Kind regards, Marie Goldman MP Member of Parliament for Chelmsford’
Atticus: As expected, boilerplate. Not engaging with any of my questions. In the meantime, I had read an interesting analysis on Substack, by Richard Lyon, that laid out the relationship between a country’s energy use and its economy. I decided to respond to Goldman using the Lyon piece as a sub-structure.
My response to Goldman on 22nd Jan, 2025:
‘Dear Marie, Thank you for your response. By way of rejoinder, I would like to point out an economic truth: the debt-based economy of the UK is wholly dependent on growing the economy each year by an amount sufficient to generate enough tax receipts to keep funding the expanding commitments of the UK government. That economic growth is entirely driven by the UK’s energy production. Net Zero will result in government bankruptcy. Let me explain. The UK economy – any country’s economy – is a pyramid whereby energy and resources comprise the bottom layer of the pyramid that supports the rest of the economy. Thus, there is a direct relationship between the quantity of energy and the size of the economy. For example, a low energy country cannot support a car industry (nor any other kind of industry for that matter). Nor could such a country build 1.5m homes in the next 4 years. Mud huts, maybe. Hence why there are no rich ‘low energy’ countries. A ‘rich’ country that decimates its energy levels will become a poor country very quickly. And that economic shrinkage will not happen in a calm and tidy manner. We are talking about hyperinflation as the value of money becomes worthless because there is not enough energy to support the goods and services that make a country rich. (Lots of money tokens chasing far fewer good and services). Pensions would be wiped out. People would freeze to death through not being able to heat their homes. (Cold weather kills 15 times more people than hot weather). Money would flee the country, ports and airports would shut due to lack of traffic, cars would disappear from the roads and even local travel would become difficult. Starvation would ensue. Starvation is always a risk in a country that only produces half of the food that it needs. However, without the fertiliser derived from hydrocarbons, even less food would be produced in the UK. The CAN Bill indicates that the carbon emissions of imports will be included in calculations suggesting that food imports would drastically reduce (not that a country undergoing hyper-inflation would be able to afford imports). There would be no power to run sewage treatment plants or hydrocarbon-based chemicals to clean the water. (The irony is that wind turbines are made from hydrocarbons, further impacting on the ‘debit’ side of our carbon emissions ledger. The energy needed to make both turbines and solar panels can only come from fossil fuels. Wind power and solar energy does not have the energy density necessary to manufacture these items, hence the loss of industry referred to above – the energy produced by a windmill cannot build a windmill). The CAN Bill is all about significantly reducing the amount of high density energy the UK produces in a short space of time. The only possible outcome of de-industrialising Britain is to take Britain’s economy back to pre-industrial levels. 200 years of progress in health and living standards would be undone in less than 20 under conditions of extreme social turmoil. In this email I have only focused on the economic consequences of CAN as these consequences alone are more than enough to contest this Bill. As this email is already longer than intended I shall ignore the egregious assaults on property rights and personal autonomy that are also built into the Bill. The subject of a subsequent email, perhaps. Net Zero will eventually collapse under the weight of its own monumental scientific and economic illiteracy. I beseech you to understand the consequences of this Bill before too much irreparable harm is done. This email is my evidence that I tried to warn you. The CAN Bill will do more damage to the well-being of this country than Climate Change ever will. If you have evidence that contradicts the narrative I have outlined above, I would welcome the opportunity to review it. Best regards, Xxxxxxxx’
Atticus: I will add Marie’s response in a future post.
By ‘Leftist’ I mean the people from the Far Left who are apologists for migrant rape gangs and push for the destruction for Western culture at every opportunity.
By ‘Rightist’ I mean everyone else.
I’ve had hundreds of on-line ‘debates’ with Leftists over the years. As you will know, it is very hard to debate a Leftist because they debate in a very different way from Rightists.
We think that someone will change their minds when presented with facts and logic that counter their argument, but while this approach will work against a Rightist, it won’t work against a Leftist because Leftists do not use facts to build their political philosophy in the first place. A Leftist’s philosophy is entirely built on emotion and so facts have no power over them.
This was brought home to me a couple of years ago when I was having a face-to-face debate with a Leftist in a pub – probably not a good idea – and I stated something the Leftist shrugged off. To this, I pointed out that what I had just said was not just an opinion, it was a fact. To which the Leftist, in an unguarded – drunk! – moment responded ‘I don’t give a f*** about facts’.
It’s easy to think pub-talk cannot be taken seriously but his words were an eye-opening moment for me. Sometimes, rarely, a Leftist will tell the truth!
Leftists will always dismiss facts as being manipulated or biased or funded by bad actors. Or the facts are out of context. Or that other influencing factors have not been taken into account. A Leftist will always find a way to dismiss facts therefore leaving facts with no power.
Lesson #1: don’t employ facts against a Leftist as they don’t cut through the Leftist’s emotional motivations.
A Leftist will make their mind on a political issue based on which perspective will make them feel good about themselves and support their self-identification as a ‘good person’. This binary approach is a very simplistic way to approach complex issues. A Rightist would never think so simplistically because a Rightist knows that things are always more complicated than a Leftist would make out. However, for a Leftist, everything is either black or white and people are either good or Nazis.
A Rightist considers the Bigger Picture. In this way the Rightest is building up a deeper understanding of the issue in a way that considers a wider set of implications. By comparison, the Leftist’s binary consideration of an issue is very child-like.
This is Lesson #2: A Leftist has a very child-like understanding of political issues and this must be taken into account when debating with them.
As a result of seeing themselves as good people, Leftists see themselves as moral people. Whilst they see everyone else as motivated by greed or hate, only they are motivated by doing ‘what is right’. As a result, in any debate, the Leftist will immediately take up the moral high-ground. This is what makes Leftists virtually undefeatable in a debate. It’s hard to win the argument by pointing out cost/benefit ratios – or whatever other logic the Rightist is using to make his case – when the Leftist is appealing to the ‘morally right thing to do’. In order to gain parity, the Rightist also needs to present his case in moral terms. Proposing a moral alternative is the only way to introduce uncertainty on the side of the Leftist. If you’re not coming at this from a moral perspective, the Leftist will dismiss you out of hand as a bad person. However, if can can convince them that your approach to political philosophy is the same as theirs, they lose their power. They don’t know how to respond. Their usual weapons of ad hominens cannot be used against someone who is making a moral argument.
Lesson #3: find a way to present your position as a moral argument. This is like Kryptonite for Leftists. They find it hard to tear down a moral argument. This doesn’t mean that they will agree with you. No, their emotional position is deeply embedded but they will find it hard to argue with you.
The other thing about Leftists that can be used to your advantage is that they see themselves as anti -Establishment. I find it bizarre that they still think they are sticking it to ‘the man’ when they have adopted the Establishment position on every single issue of the day. Rightists are now the real anti- Establishmentists and this can be used to our advantage.
Lesson #4: Position your argument as being the anti-Establishment position. This renders Leftists useless because they will find it hard to argue with you without being seen as pro-Establishment (which they definitely will not want to be seen doing).
You have probably heard of the Logical Fallacy known as ‘Appeal to Authority’ whereby someone asserts that a claim is true simply because an authority figure or expert said it is true, without providing additional evidence or reasoning. Well, I have come up with a twist on this that scores points against Leftists. My version is the ‘Appeal to Minority’ whereby I direct the Leftist to a minority person that agrees with my position on the subject. As we know, Leftists find it very difficult to criticise minorities – only bigots do that. This means the argument is strengthened by the addition of the minority comment with very little downside.
Lesson #5: Use ‘Appeal to Minority’ to bolster your argument whilst enjoying watching the Leftist navigate the minefield you have just dropped in front of them.
NOTE: The minority person used cannot be anyone that breaches Lesson #6, below.
Finally, there is just one more lesson.
Lesson #6: Do not reference terms / people that are triggering to Leftists.
Even if you have followed the other 5 lessons you can still lose the debate if you use a ‘dog whistle’ term that Leftists associate with the ‘Far Right’. Examples of such references include Tommy Robinson; cultural differences where the difference is negative for a non-white culture; Trump (obviously); any Right wing media outlet; any Right wing politician; any Right wing journalist. I was even recently witness to a Leftist claiming a moral victory because somone in the debate had referenced ‘Elon Musk’. (They clutched their pearls and said they couldn’t believe they were in a debate where someone had referenced Musk! I kid you not!)
Some will say that following these 6 lessons means playing by ‘their’ rules. That it is an example of ceding ground to Leftists in the culture wars. I agree, it is, but you must remember Lesson #2: Leftists are child-like. They are not capable of sophisticated arguments. You wouldn’t debate a child in the same way as an adult. You would try to come down to their level in order for them to understand your point. It’s the same for Leftists. Plus, it makes it extra fun to beat them at their own game.
You will never change a Leftist’s mind, of course, but you can mute them to a large extent and you will gain moral victories
Although I drew these lessons only recently, I’ve already had much more success than previously. Just this week I had 4 Leftists going at me on the subject of cultural differences at play in Northern UK towns and none of them were able to get a bite out of me. (My moral argument was for the victims and, of course, I adopted a strong anti-establishment position). One by one, they all gave up. They knew they had lost. They kept impuning my motives but I stayed tight, keeping to these 6 lessons.
I recently had an opportunity to talk to a farmer of my acquaintance about her feelings for the future of farming in light of the UK government’s current overhaul.
She expressed concerns but also felt that changes were needed. Later that day she forwarded me an email that she had recently received from the Pathways project that provided lots of links to a recent food seminar that had recently taken place. The farmer added the following covering note:
‘I thought I’d share this newsletter, lots of organisations out there doing good and they use the phrase ‘farming evolution’ and that’s very much how I’d describe it. Just another part of the continual evolution of everything whether it be for good or bad… I can only influence/control/react how I can with the resources I have at that time…’
In response, I organised my own thoughts about the governments intentions for farming that gave a less optimistic perspective.
This was my response:
Hi Xxxxx, Yes, a good talk. It was good to see that you, a farmer, are not overly pessimistic about the changes on the horizon. Here are my thoughts on what is going on. This is the first time I have shared my thoughts on farming and the first person to read them will be an actual farmer so I am aware I am almost certainly teaching my grandmother to suck eggs! I expect to receive a lot of corrections but here goes:
My concern is that changes are being forced on the system of farming that will put many farmers out of business and lead to much less food production in Britain. Farming is a complex system that has evolved to where it is now over hundreds of years. Now the government has decided to design a new farming system. That’s a red flag for a start – whenever the government thinks it can take a complex system and re-design it, it never works out well. And if the govt were merely trying to optimise the existing system for the benefit of farmers, that would still be something that the govt would likely mess up with bureaucracy and inflexibility. However, the govt is not tweaking the existing system for the benefit of farmers. Instead the govt is attempting something much more ambitious than that: they are attempting to implement a brand new system based on a new ideology – controlling the Earth’s climate – for the benefit of society at large. In this new system, food production is not placed first and foremost, political ideology is. Trying to optimise farming around a new model with different financial incentives whilst adhering to low carbon ideology is a root and branch overhaul of a complex system. There are too many moving parts and the govt is guaranteed to mess it up on an epic scale. And farmers will almost certainly come off worse because none of this is being done for their benefit, nor is it being done in consultation with farmers. As far as I can tell, it’s all being worked out by technocrats. Take your email from the Pathways Project, for example: not a farmer in sight, that I could see. My take is that these are technocrats wanting to put their theories into practise. What could possibly go wrong?! Were any farmers in attendance at the Action Task Force seminar? Did any farmers present their persoective to the assembled experts? The whole redesign does not appear to be collaborative, it seems like a top-down implementation. So I can understand why farmers are suspicious of what is going on.
I notice the repeated references to the importance of ‘sustainability’ in the email. I don’t see any references to the importance of producing enough food! Not a good sign. In my experience, ‘sustainability’ is a codeword for ‘restrictions’. Once it is messed up and farmers are forced out of business, those farmers will be lost forever. I think this has the possibility of being a catastrophic blow for farming whose impact will be felt for years to come. And the rest of society will not reap any benefits anyway (unless you think that the UK govt can control the planet’s weather. That’s a whole contentious subject right there). Instead, the odds are that food will be more expensive and many farmers will have been pushed out of the business.
A cynic could suggest that this is part of a deliberate plan to force small farmers out of business in place of more corporate farming. As in other sectors of the economy, more regulation will be introduced which big firms can absorb more easily than small firms. There’s also a suspicion that the govt is using this opportunity to incentivise us to change our eating habits. For example, eating less meat (about which there are endless articles in the mainstream media). So, again, we have additional indications that the new system is not about food production, it’s about ideology. I hope I’m wrong but the portents are not good. I would value your feedback. Am I totally off-track? I have no inside knowledge, all of the above is based on articles I have read together with extrapolating the direction of travel. Some of it is educated guesswork but the message is that we need to be vigilent to ensure that our food security isn’t jeopardised.
I value what you and Xxxxxxx are doing. Long may you continue!
Regards, Atticus Fox
In response, the farmer sent this reply:
Good to chat this morning. It’s certainly a minefield out there, I try and bring it back to simplicity whenever I can and delve more when I have the headspace/energy/interest. Currently, I think I need a break from it!!
I thought I’d share this newsletter, lots of organisations out there doing good and they use the phrase ‘farming evolution’ and that’s very much how I’d describe it. Just another part of the continual evolution of everything whether it be for good or bad… I can only influence/control/react how I can with the resources I have at that time.
Enjoy the sun today, see you soon. Xxxxx
This is email that the farmer had forwarded to me. I have not included working links but I am sure you could find them online using the information included:
Begin forwarded message:
Agriculture Policy in a Changing World | Spring 2024 On March 7, the For Sustainable Food Forum convened with over 70 in attendance, serving as a pivotal platform for discussing sustainable practices within the European livestock sector.
The forum aimed to tackle environmental impacts while addressing the growing societal demand for safe, nutritious, and affordable meat and dairy products.
Recognising the urgency for change in both the industry and broader society, PATHWAYS presented innovative strategies throughout the day to pave the way for a sustainable future in European agriculture. Participants highlighted comprehensive recommendations such as Performance-Based Payments (PBP) within the Collective Agricultural Policy (CAP), an emission reduction mechanism, and the diversification of protein sources to align with climate goals and nutritional needs.
The event was a resounding success thanks to all attendees, both in-person and online!
For further details and highlights, visit our website, and check out the photo album here.
Project Updates
Towards Climate Smart Livestock Systems
In recognising the multifaceted role of livestock systems in Africa, efforts must prioritise livelihoods, adopt a systems approach, and address climate change impacts, while considering disparities in distribution and proposing sustainable solution for both industrial and agrarian food systems. Read more here.
Sustainable livestock systems: What does this mean?
Sustainability within the European livestock sector presents a multifaceted challenge, requiring tailored solutions, innovative practices at the farm level, and meaningful engagement of young farmers to steer the course of agricultural evolution. Read more here.
Trade-Offs for the Future of Livestock Husbandry
In view of making livestock husbandry more sustainable, Catherine Pfeifer explains the need of evaluating trade-offs between efficiency, environmental footprint, and animal welfare. Watch here.
A Holistic Approach for Sustainable Food Systems
Pietro Goglio from the University of Perugia, Italy, explores the holistic approach employed in the PATWAYS project, the importance of agronomy in addressing livestock-crop interactions and how PATHWAYS is employing principles of circularity for enhanced sustainability in livestock systems. Watch here. Policy Recommendations
Following the event’s thorough discussions, this policy brief summarises the main points reached during the forum storyline sessions regarding the real PATHWAYS – the possible futures for agriculture in Europe. Read more here via LinkedIn. Upcoming Events
5th Global Food Security Conference April 9 – 12 Leuven, Belgium
S-LCA 2024 May 28 – 31 Curitiba, Brazil
The 75th EAAP Annual Meeting September 1 – 5 Florence, Italy
LCA Food 2024 September 8 – 12 Barcelona, Spain Learn more Related projects
The farmer responded as follows:
You’re certainly informed, it’s great that you are so aware to it all.
You’re right the mainstream media has an awful lot to answer for, and not just when it comes to food, it’s so hard to avoid all the additional influence we are subject to. The food system is incredibly delicate and complex, the more I understand of it the more I can see how it’s got to where it has.
Farmers may not be the ones setting new policies but they are called upon to consult and I do feel it’s collaborative but maybe not equally favourable to all those involved. However, your concerns are very real and farmers are most certainly not the priority of governments but I don’t think they can be with so many factors involved in the food system.
I think you’re right, ’sustainability’ does mean ‘restrictions’ but I see that as a positive thing. For example, food seasonality and understanding that strawberries shouldn’t be on the shelves the entire year. Only having them available when they’re in season would be a ‘restriction’ but ultimately more ’sustainable’. That’s a very top level example but that’s how I see it being driven, producers have to deliver what customers want but also on their own terms based upon their values and what they believe, as producers, to be sustainable. That for me personally is less about conforming to the ideology of changing the earth’s climate but more about us, as humans, generally consuming less.
I think policies are always generalised and quite overwhelming because of that. They will always be open to interpretation and managed as per each farm sees fit. As for farms being lost, yes there is that danger and it is a real possibility but, this isn’t a new thing. Smaller farms who haven’t adapted have had to sell up but often to larger farming businesses, all still independent, farms that have been in families for generations are given new leases of life with fresh sets of eyes.
It’s bloody complicated and there is only so much I/we can do, ultimately it’s up to farmers and consumers to educate themselves. It’s certainly a time full of change for the agricultural industry, I just hope farmers aren’t burying their heads in the sand and can adapt with the changes to come. Only time will tell .
Around the time in March 2020 that lockdowns were imposed in response to covid, an Iceberg meme was widely shared on social media. The picture conveyed the message that lockdowns were going to have all sorts of negative consequences that were being ignored in the myopic focus on covid deaths.
90% of an iceberg lies beneath the surface
There was no cost benefit analysis of lockdowns done at the time because governments wanted to introduce lockdowns. Now, 4 years later, we are in a position to perform a retrospective cost benefit analysis by quantifying the positive and negative consequences of the lockdowns.
Taking each ‘below the water line’ consequence of lockdowns in turn…
Unemployment:
The lockdowns of 2020 resulted in the UK’s worst recession in the history of industrial capitalism – a fall in economic output not seen since the Great Frost of 1709.
Speaking in October 2020 Jonathan Athow, the ONS’s deputy national statistician for economic statistics, said there had been a “sharp increase” in those out of work and job hunting since March.
“Overall employment is down about half a million since the pandemic began and there are particular groups who seem to be most affected, young people in particular,” he told the BBC’s Today programme.
“[Of those out of work] about 300,000 are aged 16-24, so about 60% of the fall in employment… that’s really disproportionate.”
Yet there was a quick bounceback in unemployment numbers. As the graph below shows, by September 2022, the unemployment rate was lower than before the lockdowns. We see the lockdown unemployment blip taking unemployment from 3.9% to 5.5% and then falling rapidly. That blip would have been very stressful for everyone who lost their job during that time. The blip was entirely the result of the government’s lockdown policy.
Let’s not forget the govt fudges the unemployment stats by excluding those deemed economically ‘inactive’
However, it’s not all good news: as of January 2023 the UK still has about 200,000 more people out of work than in December 2019. It seems counter-intuitive that the unemployment can be lower yet the workforce is smaller. That’s because some people have chosen to be economically inactive, perhaps by taking early retirement. These may well be people who would have preferred to continue working but having lost their jobs found it difficult to find another. That’s 200,000 people who are no longer contributing tax revenue.
A 2014 study in Social Science and Medicine by Timothy J. Halliday showed that a 1% rise in the unemployment rate raises the risk of dying by 6% over the following year.
Let’s not forget the impact lockdowns had on small businesses.
SMEs account for 50 percent of the total revenue generated by UK businesses and 44 percent of the labour force. During lockdowns many SME’s were forced to shutter. Large firms, on the other hand were classed as ‘essential businesses’ and were allowed to continue trading. Sounds like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
What was the impact of these policies on SME’s?
As of 1 January 2021, there were 6.5 per cent fewer private companies than in 2020. This was the largest fall in business population since before 2000.
The bulk of these closed companies will have been SME’s.
The Business Impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Survey (Wave 17) found 17.2% of micro businesses (fewer than 10 workers) were pausing trade or temporarily closed as of late October 2020 compared with 6.1% of firms with 250 or more workers.
Overall, the UK economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP), shrank by a record 19.8% in the second quarter (April to June) of 2020, following the start of the first lockdown on 23 March.
According to analysis by the Bank of England, the pandemic reduced cash flows for many companies, with smaller companies “more likely than larger companies to operate in sectors that have been most affected by the shock, such as accommodation and food, arts and recreation, and construction”.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has previously warned that the level of GDP was on track to be almost 4 per cent lower in 2025 than it would have been without the lockdowns. The cumulative loss of economic output, it said, would be worth £727 billion over the five-year period.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) October 2020 retail sales publication reported “online sales reaching higher than usual levels over the course of the pandemic”. Online purchases represented 28.5% of total sales in October compared with 20.1% in February.
Conclusion: The wealthy did very well out of lockdowns as they hoovered up government grants and contracts and quantitative easing monies. Plus, big companies were able to continue trading whilst their smaller rivals were shuttered. The result of lockdowns was the biggest transfer of wealth to the top 1% in human history.
Heart Failure / Death by Disease:
A report in The Financial Times on April 26, 2020 referenced an internal British government estimate that ultimately, without mitigation, up to 150,000 people in the UK could die prematurely from other conditions because of the Covid-induced lockdown that put on hold huge numbers of screenings and operations. Yet the band played on.
From March 2020 hospitals pretty much stopped ‘routine’ services. The Lancet published results of a study into the impact of the first UK lockdown on hospital admissions:
‘Admission rates for all three conditions [1) cancer 2) cardiovascular 3) respiratory] fell by 34.2% in England, 20.9% in Scotland, and 24.7% in Wales.’
However, these percentages from the Lancet sound pretty dry. They don’t tell us the numbers involved. Instead, let’s focus on this story from a breast cancer charity:
‘Between March and September 2020, it is estimated that 986,000 women missed regular breast screenings… This will translate into 8,600 women having undetected breast cancer… Breast cancer diagnosed at a later stage can be harder to treat…’
But at least we had all those Doctors and nurses dancing in TikTok videos
Lockdowns will have caused hundreds, maybe thousands, of women to die or become seriously ill with breast cancer. That is the impact of lockdowns on just one disease. Now think of all the other diseases where scans and preventative treatments save lives. This gives an insight into the numbers of people who were the lambs sacrificed to the covid God.
The NHS was created to protect us. Now, we were told we had to protect the NHS.
Pity he didn’t think of that sooner
NHS waiting lists are at record levels. Over seven million patients were waiting to start hospital treatment at the end of September 2022. Over 400,000 had been waiting for over a year. This is more than double the pre-pandemic level.
117,000 people on the National Health Service’s (NHS) multi-million-long waiting lists had died by July 2022. How many of these people would still be alive if the NHS had not transformed into the National Covid Service?
According to YouGov and Eurostat data, one in six UK adults were unable to access a pressing medical examination or treatment over the past year – the highest proportion in Europe.
As far as heart failure is concerned, in June 2012 the British Heart Foundation published data that ‘Nearly 100,000 more deaths involving heart conditions and stroke than usual since pandemic began’. This total equates to 500 additional deaths per week involving cardiovascular disease. Some will say the extra deaths are caused by the record NHS backlogs since the lockdowns. Others will politely suggest the treatment used to innoculate people from covid is responsible. A few will even say that covid is responsible for the extra heart disease without explaining why heart disease deaths have remained high whilst covid rates have collapsed.
And let’s not forget that our immune systems need to be kept fighting fit:
‘Dr Sunetra Gupta explains that society-wide pathogenic avoidance creates an “immunity debt,” a gap in the level of protection that you have developed from previous exposure.
‘Dr. Gupta’s observation is that we evolved with pathogens in a delicate dance in which we share the same ecosphere, both suffering and benefiting from our entanglement with them. Disturbing that balance can wreck the immune system and leave us more vulnerable and sicker than ever before. ‘
Conclusion: The government decided that covid deaths were more important than non-covid deaths. As a result,the number of non-covid deaths caused by cancelled screenings and longer waiting times is already greater than the number of deaths from covid and this differential will continue to grow over the coming years.
Suicides /Mental Health:
Several early warnings were issued also about the mental health costs of lockdown measures with increased loneliness, mental anxiety and emotional distress at job losses, financial stress and forced family separations.
During February 21–March 20, 2021, suspected suicide attempt A&E visits in the US were 50.6% higher among girls aged 12–17 years than during the same period in 2019…
Children and young people are now facing what amounts to a mental health crisis, exacerbated by the pandemic, with around one in six 6-to-16-year-olds now having a probable mental health disorder.
NHS data analysed by the PA news agency show a 39 percent rise in a year in referrals for NHS mental health treatment for under-18s, to 1,169,515 in 2021 to 2022.
This study showed that the percentage of students who had a score which warranted a classification of clinical depression increased from 30% to 44%, and for anxiety increased from 22% to 27% – those students who showed a co-morbidity across the two rose from 12% to 21%. Smartphone addiction levels rose from 39% to 50%. Correlational analysis showed a significant relationship between Smartphone usage and depression and anxiety.
Conclusion: Our governments unleashed a wholly unnecessary campaign of fear in order to convince us that covid was an existential threat. This fear campaign was transmitted to a population isolated by lockdown restrictions. Fear and isolation is not a healthy combination. The heightened levels of anxiety and depression in society that resulted from that campaign will probably never return to pre-lockdown levels.
Addiction:
Record levels of alcohol related deaths in 2020 and 2021.
There were 9,641 alcohol related deaths in the UK in 2021, compared to 7,565 in 2019 – a 27% increase.
In February 2021 the ‘Action on Addiction’ charity says it saw an 86% rise in the number of people seeking help in January 2021 compared with January 2020. The difference is explained by the UK being in lockdown in 2020.
Smartphone addiction levels rose from 39% to 50%. Correlational analysis showed a significant relationship between Smartphone usage and depression and anxiety.
This next article published many more references to the predictions of harm that would be caused, globally, by lockdowns that were ignored by governments.
Conclusion: routine is a positive influence for people. It’s not really a surprise that when people had their routine taken away by lockdowns, they would fill that space with destructive tendencies.
Violence:
In May 2020, Refuge, a charity that runs a domestic abuse helpline, said that over the previous three consecutive weeks it had recorded a 66% increase in calls to its helpline and recorded a 957% increase in web traffic over the previous two weeks.
Conclusion: it is obvious that restricting people to their homes will lead to an increase in domestic abuse. Then, transmitting a fear campaign will only exacerbate the situation.
Famine / Death of Children:
The Covid-19 crisis has doubled the number of people around the world who are facing crisis levels of hunger.
An Oxfam report found that 121 million more people could be “pushed to the brink of starvation this year” as a result of disruption to food production and supplies, diminishing aid as well as mass unemployment.
Conclusion: Lots of low paid non-essential workers were not allowed to work at a time when economic activity collapsed. This is the recipe for hunger.
Education:
Lockdowns forced 500 million children around the world out of school
From select committee report: ‘One 2020 study found that children locked down at home in the UK spent an average of only 2.5 hours each day doing schoolwork, and one fifth of pupils did no schoolwork at home, or less than one hour a day. School closures have been nothing short of a national disaster for children and young people….it is clear that school closures have had a disastrous impact on children’s academic progress, with disadvantaged children and those living in disadvantage areas the worse hit.’
The rapid digitisation of education further widened learning gaps between wealthy and low-income students in the country:
‘An important side-effect of the coronavirus impact is the exposure of the digital divide that exists in the UK. Social mobility and class differences mean that some of the poorest and most disadvantaged children are likely to be affected by a lack of access to remote learning because of technological issues.’
Conclusion: Lots of materials I have read whilst researching this piece refer to the impacts caused by covid19. Let’s be precise here: the impacts were caused by lockdowns, not covid. The impacts were man-made.
Of course, education was heavily affected but it’s not just academic education that suffered. Real-world education suffered massively. Children learn a lot of life-lessons from each other: how to play; how to negotiate; how to win; how to lose; how to persuade; how to kiss etc etc. I think of all the play times our children missed. All the parties they missed. The friends they could have made, but didn’t.
Cost Benefit Analysis
Billionaires did very well out of lockdowns. Coincidently, billionaires were one of the groups pushing for lockdowns.
‘From the start of March [2020] to now [April 27, 2020], the group of billionaires’ total wealth has increased by $308 billion.’
Even the BBC predicted the harm of lockdowns: On May 29, 2020, Zaria Gorvett reported for the BBC Future program that most Covid deaths would be not from the virus but from the collateral damage inflicted by the various lockdown measures. Yet the government pushed on with the destruction for another year.
The bulk of this article focuses on non-quantifiable costs in terms of impacts on people’s lives. Let me now turn my attention to the quantifiable costs…
The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in very high levels of public spending. Current estimates of the cost of Government measures announced so far range from about £310 to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.
How many lives saved? None. If anything lockdowns led to increased numbers of non-covid deaths. Here’s an article that lays out the results of an Oxford study. The conclusion of the study is that:
‘Severe government measures did little to lower COVID-19 deaths or excess mortality from all causes. Indeed, government measures appear to have increased excess mortality from non-COVID health conditions. Yet the severity of these measures negatively affected economic performance as measured by unemployment and GDP and education as measured by access to in-person schooling.’
Having confirmed that lockdowns have imposed huge costs on our health and wellbeing as a society, let’s now consider the benefits of lockdowns.
What were the benefits? There were none. It has long been known that lockdowns do not prevent the transmission of infectious diseases. Many studies have reached that conclusion. Here is a link to an article that includes further links to the lockdown studies:
Instead of conducting and publishing rigorous cost-benefit analyses, departments and ministries of health turned into Covid-only bureaus, health ministers acted like Covid ministers, and governments were almost corrupted into single-purpose organizations pursuing Zero Covid.
We might not have known exactly how lockdown would play out back in the spring of 2020. But it was obvious to anyone that upending every aspect of our lives would have serious consequences. Yet the governing classes dismissed the risks of lockdown. In fact, most of the elites wanted longer and harder lockdowns than the three we, in England, endured. They thought the most restrictive regime on economic and public life that had ever been devised was not restrictive enough. As such, more lockdowns are on their way: as part of signing up to the WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Treaty, lockdowns will become a way of life.
‘Massive educational degradation. Economic devastation, by both the lockdowns and now the continuing fiscal nightmare plaguing the nation caused by continuing federal overreaction. The critical damage to the development of children’s social skills through hyper-masking and fear-mongering. The obliteration of the public’s trust in institutions due to their incompetence and deceitfulness during the pandemic. The massive erosion of civil liberties. The direct hardships caused by vaccination mandates, etc. under the false claim of helping one’s neighbor. The explosion of the growth of Wall Street built on the destruction of Main Street.
The clear separation of society into two camps – those who could easily prosper during the pandemic and those whose lives were completely upended. The demonization of anyone daring to ask even basic questions about the efficacy of the response, be it the vaccines themselves, the closure of public schools, the origin of the virus, or the absurdity of the useless public theater that made up much of the program. The fissures created throughout society and the harm caused by guillotined relationships amongst family and friends…’
Yet there are no apologies and no punishments. Politicians say that they were doing the best they could with limited information. Yet any idiot could predict the obvious consequences. The more obvious it became that covid had a low infection fatality rate, the worse the cost benefit ratio of lockdowns became. Yet governments pressed on.
A cynic could suggest that governments wanted the restrictions to be as harsh as possible so that we would eagerly accept the experimental gene therapy that was released at the end of 2020…
I have been wondering recently what happens to the plastic that I put out for recycling. Is it all recycled? There are many types of plastic, some of which cannot be recycled. It occurred to me that the sorting all of the plastics into various types would be probably have to be done manually and, therefore, the cost of sorting huge amounts of plastic waste would be huge. I had a suspicion that not all plastics are sorted and that not all recyclable plastic is recycled.
In my quest for information, I looked at council’s webpage that explains what happens to our recycling.
The council’s information on the recycling of plastics is as follows (as at 7th Sep, 2023):
Plastics: ‘Once collected, we sort plastics using our MSF. Plastic bottles are generally made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). A re-processing factory cleans and grades the plastic and then turn it into flakes or pellets. They then send the plastic onto a manufacturer, who turns it into more plastic bottles and food packaging.
Other types of plastics are sorted for onward transfer to a variety of different re-processors, and recycled into similar products. ‘Energy from waste’ companies will take any plastic that can’t be recycled into new packaging and turn it into electricity.’
I thought this information was suitably vague. The text infers that all plastics are sorted without actually saying so. I decided to submit a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request to the council to find out more.
I received responses to my questions on October 5th. Full request with responses:
‘My request relates to the processing of plastics collected by Chelmsford City Council. I have read the short section on the CCC website relating to processing of plastics. My 10 questions delve further into the detail and are as follows: 1) ‘Once collected, we sort plastics using our MSF ..’. What is an MSF?
Answer: Material Sorting Facility
2) Does the MSF sort 100% of the plastics collected by CCC?
Answer: No
3) If less than 100% of collected plastics are sorted, could you provide a percentage that is sorted?
Answer: 5% sorted by Chelmsford City Council
4) If less than 100% of collected plastics are sorted, could you provide details as to what happens to the unsorted plastics
Answer: 95% Sent to Essex reclamation in Witham to be sorted. The City Council will only transfer materials to companies who have the appropriate certification and permits from the Environment Agency [who are the regulator] for the material concerned. These environmental permits can be inspected by accessing the public register on the Department for Environment Food & Rural Agency website: https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register.
5) If the unsorted plastics are divided between multiple other processes, could you provide figures as to how the 100% of unsorted plastics is split between different processes?
Answer: Please see response to question four above.
6) Regarding the sorted plastics using the MSF, where does the sorting take place, Ie in Chelmsford or in Essex or in the UK or Abroad?
Answer: Freighter House Depot, Chelmsford.
7) If the sorting of plastics collected by CCC occurs in a number of different locations, could you provide average percentages of CCC plastic for each location?
Answer: Please see response to question four above.
8) I’d like to know more about the ‘Energy from waste companies’: what % of total plastic collections by CCC are sent to these firms?
Answer: CCC do not directly send plastics to EFW companies.
9) Is only sorted, unrecyclable plastic sent to Energy from Waste firms? Or is unsorted plastics collected by CCC also sent to such firms?
Answer: Approximately 17% of plastics sent to Essex Reclamation are classified as unrecyclable plastic and it is currently sent to SRF [solid recovered fuels] in Germany.
10) Where are the Energy to Waste firms located? UK or Abroad?’
Answer: Please see response to question nine above.
The responses raise further questions:
A) CCC sorts 5% of plastics collected. What does CCC do with plastics that cannot be recycled? Your website states that non-recyclable plastics are sent to EFW firms but your previous response to my FOI states that CCC ‘…do not directly send plastics to EFW companies.’
B) 95% of collected plastics are sent to Essex Reclamation in Witham. Does Essex Reclamation sort all of the plastics it receives?
C) Can you confirm that all recyclable plastics collected by CCC are recycled?
Corporations are increasingly viewing the culture wars as an opportunity to show how noble and pure they are. Why are they doing this? Perhaps they think that attacking men or white people can only benefit them? Well, I’m here to ensure these divisive, racist and misandrist campaigns are publicised and remembered. Here is a list of the companies that I try not to use anymore. (I admit that the social media companies are hard to avoid. However, I have accounts on Gab and Parler etc and I fully intend to stop using FB and Twitter at some point).
Mozzilla: The chairwoman of Mozzilla feels it is perfectly fine to use censorship and deplatforming against fellow citizens that don’t vote the same way as her – “we need more than deplatforming…”
Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube – obvious. No examples needed. I no longer use Google (use ‘Brave’ instead) or FB or Twitter (use Telegram) and I am gradually transitioning to Rumble, in place of YouTube.
Gillette – that man-hating advert made by a far-left feminist.
Paperchase – stopped advertising in Daily Mail as result of pressure from Stop Funding Hate. I won’t support such a lack of conviction. It’s spinelessness like this that encourages the SJWs.
Innocent Drinks – fervent EU supporters (companies should not be using their profiles to promote political political positions). Also, they blocked a pensioner from the Innocent Twitter account for ‘transphobia’.
Burger King – the well known slurry processor pulled its ads from Rumble after Rumble refused to kowtow to the witch-hunt of Russell Brand (a man who, at the time of writing this, has not been charged, let alone convicted of any crime).
Asos and Hello Fresh – same reasons as Burger King.
Arla (dairy products). At the end of 2024 it was revealed that Arla was partnering with many of its dairy farmers to introduce an additive / drug into cows as part of an experimental trial that was thought would reduce methane emissions from cows. The drug is 3-nitro-oxy-propalene, known by its brand name ‘Bovaer’. Bovaer is a known carcinogen.
I’m sure there will be many more to be added to this list in the near future…
The film ‘Team America (World Police)’ features a song with the lyrics:
‘Freedom is not free, There’s a hefty ferkin’ fee’
The message, obviously, is that being free and remaining free involves costs, often in the form of sacrifice. Historically, some people have martyred themselves in the name of freedom. I’m not aware that anyone has ever martyred themselves because they wanted the authorities to remove their freedoms. That is not the way it usually works.
We are told that the carnage of WW2 was necessary for Europe to remain free (even though a lot more of Europe was significantly less free by the war’s end. But that’s a different blog).
Being free comes at the cost of protecting that freedom. The very act of being free comes with heightened risks to your safety. Climbing a mountain is a satisfying expression of freedom but that freedom involves accepting the risk that you could hurt yourself.
You cannot have complete freedom and complete safety. There is a trade off. Free people are able to make the assessment between freedom and safety and decide on their actions accordingly. A mountain climber places a premium on freedom. A health and safety officer places a premium on safety.
So in the same way that freedom is not free, neither is safety. The cost of safety is freedom. Someone who removes all risks to their safety is actually removing all their freedoms. This is why, technically, the safest place you could possibly be is a prison. And this is what Western governments are in the process of doing right now. Governments are introducing ever more legislation ‘for your safety’ and each new law strips us of more freedoms.
The old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows is playing out in front of our eyes.
Lockdowns were initiated to protect us from covid. The government prioritised safety over freedom, on our behalf. Result= Our freedom was removed without our consent.
Vaccine coercion/ mandates were initiated to protect us from covid. Result = freedom to choose which medical treatments you take were removed
Online safety bills are being initiated throughout the West to save us from online harm. The Bill also allows the scanning of private messages. Result = freedom of speech removed; privacy removed.
Misinformation / disinformation regulations are being initiated to protect us from exposure to information that contradicts the authorities. Result = freedom of speech removed. Ability to contradict the government removed.
Clampdown on protests are being initiated to protect us from disruption and angry mobs. Result = freedom of expression removed
Initiatives to protect us from Climate Change are coming down the track (Net Zero; 15 minute cities; EPC’s; Banning of gas boilers; Restrictions on car usage etc). Result = freedom of movement removed: freedom of choice removed
Increased surveillance including facial recognition software will protect us from bad air (ULEZ) and from bad viruses (Lockdowns). Result = loss of privacy; freedom of movement removed.
Digital ids will protect us from identity theft and protect us from financial fraud. Result = loss of privacy
Hate speech laws are designed to protect people from ever being offended. Result: loss of freedom of speech; freedom of debate restricted.
Our governments continue to find new ways to protect us. But know this: every initiative to protect us limits our freedom. Every one.
Unless the initiative is explicitly to protect our freedom, then it will remove our freedom.
Once the government has made us totally safe, we will have zero freedom worth having.
There are plenty of regulatory bodies whose role is to ensure our safety: MHRA; Ofcom; Ofsted; FSA, FCA etc. There are no regulatory bodies designed to protect our freedom.
Regulatory bodies want to regulate. It’s what they do. To keep themselves busy, regulatory bodies will keep finding things to regulate. Regulations restrict freedom
Remember that a totally safe environment is a banal environment, devoid of interest or excitement.
That doesn’t mean we will live forever. We will be pumped full of mRNA, ‘for your safety’.
The same people that wanted the UK to Remain in the EU because of the advantages of free movement across the continent are the same people that support 15 minute cities in the UK whereby people will have no free movement.
The same people that demand UBI because AI will soon lead to mass unemployment also support mass immigration to support the Labour Market.
The same people that say the minimum wage is unlikeable also say that we need to import infinity migrants on minimum wage to do the jobs that the English don’t want to do.
The same people that support Net Zero laws because the lifestyle of British people uses too many resources also support mass immigration into the UK to give people a chance to take part in Western lifestyles.
The same people that delight in falling birth rates in the West as being good for the planet by reducing overconsumption also support mass immigration into the West of people with much higher birth rates than the indigenous population.
The same people that tell us that all humans are essentially the same and that differences are simply the product of nuture and then try to iron out those differences between people by ensuring that everyone is equally poor and equally badly educated and removing meritocracy and inheritances are the same people that insist that immigrants do not beed to assimilate into British culture.
The same people that tell us that gender is a social construct also tell us that some people were assigned the wrong gender at birth.
The same people that tell us that gender is a social construct also tell us that some men feel they are women despite those labels being nothing more than socially constructs.
The same people that tell us that some men feel that they are actually women are unable to explain what a woman is.
The same people that tell us that a man can become woman just by deciding to do so are the same people railing against the spread of disinformation.
The same people that tell us that men and women are the same are the same people that tell us that men display toxic masculinity.
The same people that tell us that women are oppressed by the patriarchy are the same people that cannot define what a woman is.
The same people that tell us that women are oppressed by the patriarchy also support gender self ID whereby men can say they are women and gain access to women’s spaces and sports.
The same people that were morally outraged about some middle class actresses being coerced into sexual activities by Hollywood Producers in 2017 believe that discussing the Muslim rape gangs that have been raping 12 year olds for decades is ‘divisive’.
The same people who believe that men can become women also believe that paper masks can protect you from covid19.
The same people that say that Ethnic minorities have a homeland that belongs to them also say that Europe does not belong to Europeans.
The same people that tell us that all people are the same also tell us that we need more diversity.
The same people that demand equality, also want preferential treatment given to minority groups.
The same people that believe in all people being treated equally believe that this means not treating certain people equally until we can get to the point where all people can be treated equally.
The same people that, during the Covid hysteria, said we must protect children by closing the schools are the same people that demand easy access to abortion services.
The same people that demand we censor the internet to protect the kids are the same people promoting the sexualisation of children.
The same people that tell us we all need to use less carbon to protect the planet, are the ones that use the most carbon.
The same people who declare that white people are racist are the ones that attack white people for being white.
The same people that support collectivism amongst races say it’s racist when white people do the same.
The same people who insist that “race” is a pernicious labelling of superficial human differences that has been refuted by modern science also obsess about racial disparities and injustices and actively promote policies that treat people of different races differently, e.g., affirmative action.
The same people that demand that the government does something to protect people when a pandemic is declared are the same people that remain quiet when the medical treatment promoted by the government leads to statically significant numbers of excess deaths.
The same people that demand that the authorities do something to protect people when a pandemic is declared are the same people that remain quiet when the authorities fail to protect vulnerable British girls from industrial scale gang rapes.
The same people that chant “My body, my choice” when it comes to abortion are the same ones who want to mandate that you take an experimental gene therapy treatment.
The same people that denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remain silent about the US’sinvasion of Syria.
The same people that demanded freedom of speech 30 years ago are the people demanding state censorship now.
The same people promoting individualism which is an ideology promoting self-responsibility also want Big Government to tell us all how to live and punish us of we try to live differently.
The same people that object to the death penalty are the same people supporting Assisted Dying legislation.
The same people that decakre the institutions of The State to be systemically racist also want the institutions of The State to run everything.
The same people that denounce the West’s colonial and imperialist history are the same ones that demand that 2nd and 3rd world countries adopt the cultural values of the West.
The same people that denounce the West’s colonial and imperialist history are the same people that delight in Western countries being colonised by mass immigration.
It is clear that the West is systemically hypocritical.
In 1939 Hitler invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia. In response Great Britain and France declared war on Germany.
Prior to 1939, Stalin had annexed Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Armenia. This was OK with Britain and France.
In 1939 the citizens of Britain and France were told that war was necessary to free Europe from a dangerous dictator, Hitler. By the end of the WW2, 50 million people were dead and most of Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Moldova, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) was in the hands of a different dangerous dictator, Stalin. Yet we called that victory.
Perhaps I am missing something.
It seems, with hindsight, like it would have been better not to wage war on Germany. More of Europe would have been free and a destructive war would have been avoided.
Or maybe WW2 was actually a 3-way war that the USA and USSR won (GB and France finishing second with Germany filling the final podium position)? After all, the USSR did change sides during the war, thereby suggesting a certain flexibility of motive.
Perhaps I’m missing something.
Outside of WW2, we estimate that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 15 to 20 million Russians. This is far higher than Hitler’s extra-curricular murder rate. Yet scroll on 80 years and the worst comparison available is to be compared to Hitler. Meanwhile ‘Stalin’ is hardly ever used as an insult. That seems strange. To my mind Stalin was far worse.
As trust in governments and government institutions collapses amongst those who are alert to the direction of travel, I find that pro-govies are placing ever greater trust in those institutions.
It’s like they have picked a side, the opposite side to the conspiracy theorists – aka those people with anti-establishment opinions – and, having picked a side, they have to fully commit to that side.
I suppose this is another symptom of our binary age where centrist positions are no longer fashionable. Sitting on the fence is not allowed. Everyone must pick a side:
You are either politically acceptable or you are ‘far right’.
You are either tolerant of every aspect of the cultural agenda or you are a bigot.
You either ‘Choose love’ or you are a transphobe.
So it is with critical thinking: you either do it, which makes you a conspiracy theorist, or you don’t, which makes you a moron.
Pro-govies will not entertain any consideration that the government and associated allies such as the UN and the WEF do not have our best interests at heart in everything they do.
Pro-govies have decided to place total faith in The Establishment. They refuse to see any possible downsides in any Globalist initiative. To show doubt is a conspiracy theorist trait. To engage in critical thinking is the behavioural trait of dangerous minds.
The media is relentless in its messaging that conspiracy theorists are spreading misinformation that is harmful to ‘our democracy’. It’s a powerful message that causes the ‘bien pensants’ amongst us to shun any and all non-approved narratives. They do not want to be thought of as conspiracy theorists.
I attended a sceptics event recently in a local pub. The speaker was a female liberal academic – with a Phd! – who sought to understand the mindset of Conspiracy Theorists. She concluded her talk that contemporary conspiracy theorists were right wing and were much more dangerous than conspiracy theorists from previous generations. Her understanding of conspiracy theorists was similar to my understanding of rocket science. An audience member asked her whether there were any conspiracy theories that she didn’t use to believe in which she now believed. Yes, there was, she responded. I can’t remember what the conspiracy theory was that she cited but she had read a book about it that she had found very compelling. She didn’t see the irony in this, that the more you study something the more likely you are to find perspectives that diverge from the official narrative!
This is a recognisable pathway to all conspiracy theorists: we read a lot about many issues. In doing so, we learn that the truth is often not what the authorities would have us believe.
That is how I learnt the truth about Climate Change. I researched the ‘other side’ of the argument and found it a lot more compelling than the authorised version. Same with the other ‘conspiracy theories’ I support.
This is useful information that allows us to better assess what government are telling us. Being well informed is a good thing, despite the ever increasing warning from the authorities not to do your own research.
Knowing that governments regularly lie to us is also a good thing to know.
Pro-govies have decided not to question government motives or whether initiatives such as digital IDs could be abused by future governments. Their trust is absolute. They want to disassociate themselves from conspiracy theorists as much as possible. They’re on the side of the good guys. The conspiracy theorists are clearly the bad guys. If the normies have doubts, they remain silent. Pro-Govies refuse to entertain the entirely reasonable supposition that it is quite possible that Globalists make secret plans – ie ‘conspiracies’ – at the many jamborees that they attend. I find it hard to assess what benefit is obtained from operating in a state of such deliberate ignorance.
The obvious question is where does the greatest downside lie? Which group are most likely to be ignorant? Which group are most likely to be disappointed? Those that are wary of the intentions of Globalists? Or those that refuse to consider the warnings?
The pro-govies are not sheep. They have gone beyond that. Such is their naivity, they are better described as lambs.
Atticus Fox 